methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration of a participant using a prototype while an observer takes notes beside a highlighted usability issue.
UX Research
Usability Testing
Paper illustration for Problem Interview
Product Discovery
Problem Interview
Affinity Diagramming
UX Research
Affinity Diagramming
Paper illustration for Concierge MVP
Product Discovery
Concierge MVP
Purposedifferent
When a product is built but people get stuck on tasks, usability testing shows the friction at concrete points. Observed use instead of self-report makes visible where orientation, understanding, or interaction breaks down.When the picture of the problem still needs to become solid, it asks about real situations and consequences. It separates genuine suffering from mere interest in a solution.When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer.When an idea can first fail or grow through genuine hands-on support, it relies on manual work instead of automation. It shows whether user value holds up even under manual execution.
Complexitydifferent
MediumMediumLowMedium
Timedifferent
1-2 h je Session30-60 min je Interview45–90 min1-4 Wochen
Participantsdifferent
Based on research question5-12 Interviews3-103-10 Kunden
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Usability Issues, Severity List, RecommendationsProblem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer SegmentsTheme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areasConcierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks
Tagsno overlap
ValidationUXPrototype
DiscoveryInterviewsValidation
SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause
MVPValidationServiceDiscovery
Add more methods